“The Sunshine Policy made achievements in reducing tension. But there were controversies over giving them [North Korea] too much and there were ideological conflicts in the South. Also, there was a lack of transparency in how the policy was handled.

“Under Lee Myung-bak’s policy, the South and North conflict worsened because the Lee administration only used a whip. The Lee hardline policy and mechanical insistence on reciprocity seemed to be based on a scenario in which the North will collapse soon. But I don’t think that scenario is persuasive.

“Therefore, based on this 15 years of experience [since the Sunshine Policy started with Kim Dae-jung], we need to make a flexible North Korean policy while maintaining a long-term perspective.”

Quote:

“In the short term, we need to restart South-North talks and economic cooperation. We need to restart the Kumgang Mountain and Kaesong city tours, expand the Kaesong Industrial Complex and gradually take that Kaesong model to other regions of North Korea. Also I think it’s important to plan an elaborate strategy for Korean peninsula after getting a solid understanding of international relations surrounding the South and North and also of the North’s internal problems.”

Quote:

Also, balanced and multilateral diplomacy is important. Especially, diplomacy with the U.S. and China needs balance. Since the South Korea and U.S. alliance is important, we need to build a relationship so both can continue to exist for each other. But one thing to keep in mind is not to lean toward one side too much and keep a balance between the U.S. and China. Considering actual economic benefits, it’s hard to explain the South Korean economy without China. And to solve North Korean problems, we need the help of China, which has influence over the North.”

So, he wants increased trade with the North, blames LMB for the current state of inter-Korea affairs, and wants to get closer to China.

Every presidential candidate will take advantage of North Korea. It's a tradition for over 20 years. For that matter, the Saenuri Party is divided into 3 factions fighting each other to death over the presidential election issues. What I'm surprised is that Ahn Cheol Soo has a small but solid group of conservative followers because of his non-partisan approach to politics.

Thanks for the informational post, CC. I have to admit I've drifted away from SK affairs over the last couple of years and have been wondering who this Ahn character is after hearing about him from my students.

He seems like an idealist, although not quite so removed from reality as some on the left.

My reactions:

a) He seems to place the failure of the Sunshine Policy on the South. I would place it quite a few kilometers to the north of the DMZ.

b) I would place a lot of responsibility on the Roh administration and their abject kow-towing to the North. That didn't seem to get anyone anywhere.

c) While 'flexibility' can be a good thing, it is a distraction from the real problem. China does not want Korea to unite, unless it is under Chinese control. What is his policy to freeze China out of North Korea?

d) He seems too pro-China. "It’s hard to explain the South Korean economy without China". Really? SK was rich compared to China by the '88 Olympics. I would say it's hard to explain the South Korean economy without the US (and Japan).

e) I agree with him that the South needs China to solve the North Korean problem, but that will mainly depend on China resolving its own problems first. Sad to say, but until China resolves its own economic/political problems, it is highly unlikely that Korea will solve the problems here on the peninsula.

He seems to speak as a 'moderate', but he doesn't seem to take all views into consideration.

As for who'll be President in Dec, my money's on Park Geun Hye after the Assembly election earlier this year.

I think it's pretty much a done deal it's going to be Park. I would be utterly shocked (and happy) if she didn't win. Personally I have nothing against a woman president, I just don't like her. The Koreans are going to get duped again like they did with Lee.

“The Sunshine Policy made achievements in reducing tension. But there were controversies over giving them [North Korea] too much and there were ideological conflicts in the South. Also, there was a lack of transparency in how the policy was handled.

“Under Lee Myung-bak’s policy, the South and North conflict worsened because the Lee administration only used a whip. The Lee hardline policy and mechanical insistence on reciprocity seemed to be based on a scenario in which the North will collapse soon. But I don’t think that scenario is persuasive.

“Therefore, based on this 15 years of experience [since the Sunshine Policy started with Kim Dae-jung], we need to make a flexible North Korean policy while maintaining a long-term perspective.”

Quote:

“In the short term, we need to restart South-North talks and economic cooperation. We need to restart the Kumgang Mountain and Kaesong city tours, expand the Kaesong Industrial Complex and gradually take that Kaesong model to other regions of North Korea. Also I think it’s important to plan an elaborate strategy for Korean peninsula after getting a solid understanding of international relations surrounding the South and North and also of the North’s internal problems.”

Quote:

Also, balanced and multilateral diplomacy is important. Especially, diplomacy with the U.S. and China needs balance. Since the South Korea and U.S. alliance is important, we need to build a relationship so both can continue to exist for each other. But one thing to keep in mind is not to lean toward one side too much and keep a balance between the U.S. and China. Considering actual economic benefits, it’s hard to explain the South Korean economy without China. And to solve North Korean problems, we need the help of China, which has influence over the North.”

So, he wants increased trade with the North, blames LMB for the current state of inter-Korea affairs, and wants to get closer to China.

Yup, firmly in the "Leftist" camp.

So he criticizes Sunshine's "lack of transparency", wants to use markets and trade to open up the North, and recognizes that China has more influence over NK, and all you can say is that Ahn is just "firmly in the Leftist camp"?

Frankly it sounds like at least some of his ideas would appeal to capitalists and Libertarian types, who oppose US global hegemony and support markets and trade to combat Communism and oppression. His domestic policies definitely do seem on the left side of the spectrum, but I don't see anything too radical about his foreign policy here. While you may agree ideologically with LMB's approach, you cannot ignore the uptick in rather serious incidents during his tenure as president- nuclear tests, missile launches, the Cheonan, Yangpyeong-do, cease of 6 party talks, and worsening conditions for the people in the North.

His China stance comes off as pretty well-informed to me. The US can't control what China does, and China is NK's lifeline. We've seen recent examples of Chinese policy changes regarding NK (returning refugees, etc) that demonstrate their greater influence. SK also relies heavily on China for manufacturing and food imports. Similarly, China has much more to gain in relations with SK than NK, and the more China can feel SK as an ally, the less concerned they'll become about having NK as a buffer between them and the West.

I call him a Leftist because he lays the blame on anything other than the north. Worsening conditions = MUST be LMB. Failed Sunshine = problems with how it was handled. Want progress with the North - be flexible!

Flexible - WTF does that mean? Does it mean when they bomb and island, you bend of and take it? How about when they shoot a tourist? Is it flexible to reach back in your pocket and give them more money?

How's this for a revelation - the relationship between the North and the South is only as good as the North wants it to be. THEY dictate the pace and mood of the relationship. DJ wasnt the first ROK president to propose a meeting... but he was the first to be accepted by the North. THEY chose because it suited THEIR needs.

The North will do what it feels is best in its interest. And if they view contact/exchange with the South as being such, they'll push for it. If pumping up the chest of their military is a priority, they'll push for that.

Whoever is sitting in the Blue House is irrelevant.

So if Ahn wants to be flexible, that's his call. No doubt he'll be asked to hold his ankles on numerous occasions.

Frankly it sounds like at least some of his ideas would appeal to capitalists and Libertarian types, who oppose US global hegemony and support markets and trade to combat Communism and oppression.

This doesn't sound too bad. But,

Quote:

I call him a Leftist because he lays the blame on anything other than the north. Worsening conditions = MUST be LMB. Failed Sunshine = problems with how it was handled. Want progress with the North - be flexible!

Flexible - WTF does that mean? Does it mean when they bomb and island, you bend of and take it? How about when they shoot a tourist? Is it flexible to reach back in your pocket and give them more money?

I'm with the Capt on his Nork policies. The last thing we need when dealing with nutjobs like the NK regime is flexibility. I'm not a conservative, but I do like Lee's stance on how provocations and attacks should be dealt with.

Flexible - WTF does that mean? Does it mean when they bomb and island, you bend of and take it? How about when they shoot a tourist? Is it flexible to reach back in your pocket and give them more money?

And what exactly did LMB do? In the case of Yangpyeong-do, he fired a couple shells back. In the case of the Cheonan... he did nothing. NK's missile launches? Nothing. Nuclear tests? Nothing.

You're sort of giving the idea that LMB is some George W. Bush-like strong retaliator but I really don't think that's the case. He just has chosen to cut diplomatic, tourist, and trade ties to appeal to conservatives, but he seems to "bend over" as much as any leftist when NK actually gets violent. LMB shouldn't be blamed for NKs violence- NK and NK alone chose to shell Yangpyeong-do and sink the Cheonan- but the deterioration in diplomatic and trade relations are his responsibility, to a degree.